WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.

The purpose of the Constitution Alteration
(Proportional Representation in the Senate) 1999 is to amend the
Constitution so as to ensure the continuance of proportional
representation as the method of election for all State and
Territory Senators.

Despite calls at the time of Federation for the
use of proportional representation, Australia has in fact had three
voting methods for the Senate:

First-past-the-post (until 1919)

Preferential voting (until 1948)

Proportional representation (Single Transferable Vote).

The first two methods often gave absurd
majorities, such as the 1919 election which saw the Nationalist
Party (46.4%) win 18 of 19 seats, whereas the ALP (42.8%) secured
just a single seat. There was a clear need for some voting method
which would more accurately reflect voters' wishes.

Proportional representation was introduced to
achieve greater proportionality, and has worked as designed, giving
representation to parties in broad reflection of their popular
support-in 1998, the Coalition and the Labor Party each gained 37%
of the vote and 17/40 Senate seats.

In the first three proportional representation
elections, the Coalition and the Labor Party shared all seats,
something they have failed to achieve in the seventeen elections
since. This has been a consequence of the emergence of significant
minor parties and a number of popular independents, and the use of
proportional representation has reflected their emergence by their
winning of seats in the upper house. In fact, the major party vote
has steadily declined, and the number of non-major party Senate
seats has increased-12 of 40 (30%) in 1998, for instance.(1)

The ability of non-major party candidates to win
Senate seats was reinforced in 1984 when the Senate was increased
in size. This lowered the electoral quota of votes needed to win
seats in State election contests from 16.7% to 14.3%.

When these developments are added to the fact
that the normal Senate election is for only half of the State
seats, it can be understood why it has become almost impossible for
the Coalition or the Labor Party to gain a Senate majority. Labor
won five House of Representatives elections in 1983-93, but could
not secure a majority, and even though the Howard Government won
the last two House of Representatives elections, it is still two
seats short of controlling the upper house.

The party responses to this position have been
diametrically opposed. A number of suggestions have come from the
Liberal and Labor parties for altering the Senate's electoral
arrangements. The proposals have varied, but have had one aim in
common-the reduction of the number of seats won by non-major party
candidates.(2) The minor parties, by contrast, have spoken strongly
in favour of the retention of proportional representation for
Senate elections. The Australian Democrats, for example, made a
pledge during the 1998 election to 'oppose any attempt to change
the Senate voting system as an attack on the very basis of the
Senate's role as a House of Review and as an attack on
representative democracy'.(3)

The significance of threats to alter the voting
method can be seen in the fact that such a change only needs
parliamentary approval. The relevant sections of the Constitution
are as follows:

s.7 states that the Senate shall be 'directly chosen by the
people of the State, voting, until the Parliament otherwise
provides, as one electorate'.

s.9 states that the Parliament 'may make laws prescribing the
method of choosing senators, but so that the method shall be
uniform for all the States'. This means that there is no need to
amend the Constitution to alter the voting method.

The history of Senate electoral arrangements
indicates how easily Parliament can replace proportional
representation with another method, just as it did in 1919 and
1948.

This is a proposal to amend the Constitution by
'entrenching proportional representation as the method of electing
the Senate'.(4) The amendments are contained in Schedule
1 of the Bill.

The Constitution (s.7)

This section of the Constitution contains basic
provisions concerning Senators, including provisions concerning
their election.

Item 1 of the Bill amends this
section to stipulate proportional representation as the method to
be used in all elections for the Senate. It also removes
Parliament's power to alter this method except by constitutional
amendment.

Item 1 also removes the special (and redundant)
provisions governing the election of Senators for the State of
Queensland.

The Constitution (s.122)

This section of the Constitution enables the
Commonwealth Parliament to provide for the representation in the
Commonwealth Parliament of any territory surrendered to it by a
State, or by authority of the Queen.

Items 3 and 4 amends this
section so as to ensure that territory Senators would also be
chosen by proportional representation.

This Bill appears to be quite straightforward in
its proposal to entrench proportional representation as the method
of election for Senate elections. Were it to be passed, however,
the fact that it does not specify any particular variant of
proportional representation, might mean that its impact would be
less than hoped for by the proponent of the Bill. Such an amendment
would not prohibit alterations to the actual system of proportional
representation, such as electoral thresholds or making some votes
non-transferable.

For the decline in major party support, see Scott Bennett, 'The
Decline in Support for the Major Parties and the Prospect of
Minority Government', Research Paper No. 10, Department of
the Parliamentary Library, Information and Research Services,
1998-99.

Scott Bennett, 'Should the Australian Electoral System be
Changed?', Current
Issues Brief No. 10 1998-99, Department of the
Parliamentary Library, Information and Research Services, 1998-99,
pp. 4-6.

See e.g. Australian Democrats, The Choice 1998. A Stronger
Senate, A Better Government, p. 6.

Scott Bennett
9 September 1999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services

This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.

IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.

Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.